Download - Video-Based Analysis of Lesson Structures
Video-Based Analysisof Lesson Structures
Lasse Savola, PhDFashion Institute of Technology—SUNYNew York, NY
Doctoral dissertation
The method of lesson structure analysis was introduced in my PhD thesis entitled Video-based analysis of mathematics classroom practice: Examples from Finland and Iceland
Teachers College, Columbia University, 2008
Large studies using lesson structure analysis
Search for structure in diversity Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) (1995, 1999) In 1999, 638 classes in 7 countries
participated Study found that there are many paths to
success The Learner’s Perspective Study (LPS)
(2006) More qualitative in nature Focused on lesson events, not the whole
lessons
Benefits of video in classroom research1. Enables the study of complex social
processes 2. Helps eliminate the say/do discrepancy
3. Lessens recorder bias
4. Increases inter-coder reliability
5. Permits unlimited reanalysis
Benefits of video in classroom research6. Allows for multiple viewpoints 7. Facilitates integration of qualitative and
quantitative methods
8. Enables richer reporting of results
9. Exposes mechanisms and antecedents
10. Can be reduced to lesser forms of event portrayal
Video in professional development of educators1. Illustrate various levels of thinking
2. Highlight effective practices
3. Show examples of student misconceptions
4. Provoke conversations about a problematic teaching moment
5. Focus on specific aspects of teaching
6. Provide a “common ground” experience
Video in professional development of educators7. Contrast cases
8. Provide visions of what is possible
9. Compress experience
10. Support role-playing
11. Predict/see what happens
12. Build categories of pedagogical phenomena
13. Enable leaps in time scales
(Pea & Hay, 2003)
Problems with video analysis
1. Verisimilitude and camera effects
2. Privacy and confidentiality
3. Educational colonialism
4. May be too persuasive, “seductive”
5. Missing contextual information
6. Evaluation of video research
Why Finland and Iceland?
Cultural and political similarities In PISA 2006, Finland ranked #1 in
mathematics and science, #2 in reading Despite spending lots of money per student,
Iceland’s scores were below average in reading and science and just above average in mathematics
Icelandic gender “problem”
PISA: Finland and Iceland
2000 2003 2006480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
FIN-MathematicsFIN-ReadingFIN-ScienceICE-MathematicsICE-ReadingICE-Science
Methodology
Twenty schools—ten in each country—participated
Two lessons per teacher were analyzed, although often three were taped
Two cameras in the back of the classroom
Lesson structure analysis using Videograph
Lesson structure analysis
Two dimensions: Function and Form
The pedagogical functions of lesson elements are based on Herbart’s (1835) cyclical sequence of learning steps (review, lesson, practice)
The categories for the forms of classroom interaction are sample-sensitive and stem from asking: Who is doing what? How are the participants interacting?
Lesson structure analysis
The first pass categories are fixed (review, introducing new material, practice, other), the second pass categories are sensitive to the sample
The method offers a way to investigate the different forms of classroom interaction by which teachers attempt to achieve their pedagogical goals
One of the strengths of this open-ended method is its ability to capture unique, yet often subtle classroom practices
Lesson structure analysis
Research questions
Does the video-based method of lesson structure analysis presented in this report extend the sensitivity of existing methods of lesson structure analysis such as those used in the TIMSS and LPS studies?
Does the video-based method of lesson structure analysis presented in this report permit structural comparison of Finnish and Icelandic mathematics lessons?
Is it feasible to conduct meaningful video-based pedagogical research on a small scale?
Some findings
Despite the small sample size, some national patterns and cross-national differences were detected
The Finnish lessons essentially followed the conventional Review-Lesson-Practice-script, whereas more than half of the Icelandic lessons exhibit versions of Individualized learning, a learner-based instructional philosophy
Finnish lessons exhibited more classroom interaction, while many Icelandic lessons consisted only of one-on-one tutoring and no whole-class interaction
First-pass categories
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Review New content Practice Other
FIN(n=20)ICE(n=20)
Eleven Icelandic lessons were conducted using versions of Individualized learning.
First-pass categories
The difference in New content is statistically significant.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Review New content Practice Other
FIN(n=20)ICE*(n=9)
Forms of Review
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Teacher presents Students on the board Class works together
FIN(n=20)ICE*(n=9)
Forms of IntroducingNew Content
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Teacherpresents
Series ofconnectedquestions
Studentswork, teacher
helps
Students copytext
Students read
FIN(n=20)ICE*(n=9)
Forms of Practicing/Applying
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Teacherdiscusses
Students work,teacher helps
Students work,teacher does not
help
Class workstogether
FIN(n=20)ICE*(n=9)
Forms of Individualized learning
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Kikan-Shido Teacher in front Student in front
Individualized learning
Should not be minimally-guided (Cognitive load theory)
Could be a factor in the decline of Icelandic students’ academic achievement scores
Could be a factor in the Icelandic gender question
Publication
Sriraman, Bergsten, Goodchild, Michelsen, Palsdottir, Steinthorsdottir, & Haapasalo (Eds.). (2009). The Sourcebook in Nordic Research in Mathematics Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing
“…the first comprehensive and unified treatment of historical and contemporary research trends in mathematics education in Scandinavia.”
Selected resources Clarke, Emanuelsson, Jablonka, & Mok (Eds.). (2006).
Making connections: Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers
Goldman, Pea, Barron, & Derry (Eds.). (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Hiebert et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. US Department of Education
Pea & Hay. (2003). Report to the NSF: CILT Workshop on digital video inquiry in learning and education, 11/25-26, 2002. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
URL
www.ru.is/lasse